In re the Claim of Tringettas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Tringettas

27 A.D.2d 773, 277 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4892

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 773 (In re the Claim of Tringettas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Tringettas, 27 A.D.2d 773, 277 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a d ecision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which (1) disqualified claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, (2) charged him with an overpayment of benefits held to be recoverable and (3) imposed a penalty upon finding that he willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits. At the end of his work day, claimant, a waiter, was asked by his supervisor to “start another party ” until another waiter should come out of the kitchen, so that the “ party [would] know that they have a waiter”. There is no disagreement as to this and no dispute as to the supervisor’s testimony that claimant then “got a little excited * 6‘ told me he don’t want to come in any more, he was quitting.” Coneededly» too, claimant was untruthful, and willfully so, in certifying “ layoff, no work ” as the cause of his unemployment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson,., P. J-, Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision per curiam.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a d ecision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which (1) disqualified claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, (2) charged him with an overpayment of benefits held to be recoverable and (3) imposed a penalty upon finding that he willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits. At the end of his work day, claimant, a waiter, was asked by his supervisor to “start another party ” until another waiter should come out of the kitchen, so that the “ party [would] know that they have a waiter”. There is no disagreement as to this and no dispute as to the supervisor’s testimony that claimant then “got a little excited * 6‘ told me he don’t want to come in any more, he was quitting.” Coneededly» too, claimant was untruthful, and willfully so, in certifying “ layoff, no work ” as the cause of his unemployment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson,., P. J-, Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision per curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 773, 277 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-tringettas-nyappdiv-1967.